The Homampour Law Firm

Call Directions Website Contact the business

The Homampour Law Firm One of the premier Personal Injury Law Firms in Los Angeles.

The Insurance Company blamed their son.He was riding his motorcycle home when a company pickup backed out of a driveway ...
10/09/2026

The Insurance Company blamed their son.

He was riding his motorcycle home when a company pickup backed out of a driveway and crossed directly into his path. The defense claimed he was traveling 60 mph in a 35 mph zone. They pointed to a trace amount of methamphetamine in his blood. They said he came out of nowhere.

Arash and the trial team did not avoid the difficult facts. They tested them.

A detailed crash reconstruction showed that the motorcycle was traveling approximately 30 mph, not 60. The driver had an unobstructed view of the motorcycle for at least six seconds. The pickup’s own black-box data showed that he never touched the brakes.

Not once.

Arash addressed the toxicology evidence directly. The question was not simply whether a substance was present. The question was whether it caused the crash.

The defense could not prove that it did.

The jury found the pickup driver 100% responsible, assigned zero fault to the young motorcyclist, and returned a $36.5 million wrongful death verdict.

Three firms saw the allegations surrounding the case. Arash saw what the evidence could prove.
After the verdict, the court granted a defense motion for a new trial. The family appealed, and the case was later resolved on confidential terms.

If an insurance company is blaming someone you lost, the lawyer you choose can determine whether its story goes unchallenged.

Read the Daily Journal article about this case at the link in bio.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Remote depositions are now part of everyday litigation. But with convenience comes a new challenge: detecting improper w...
10/07/2026

Remote depositions are now part of everyday litigation. But with convenience comes a new challenge: detecting improper witness coaching in real time.

In his latest article for the Consumer Attorneys of California Forum, Scott E. Boyer examines how videoconference depositions have created opportunities for conduct that can undermine the truth-seeking process, including text messages, chats, off-screen signals, and other forms of real-time coaching.

The problem is not theoretical. Courts and disciplinary bodies have already confronted situations where attorneys attempted to influence witness testimony during remote proceedings.

Scott discusses recent developments, including cases involving sanctions for remote deposition coaching, and explains why California needs a clearer framework for addressing this issue.

As technology continues to shape litigation, the rules protecting the integrity of testimony must evolve with it.

Read Scott E. Boyer’s article, “The Remote Deposition Coaching Problem, and the Case for a Formal Rule,” in the Consumer Attorneys of California Forum.

Had the opportunity to speak at my alma mater, Southwestern Law School, this week to a group of future lawyers.We covere...
10/06/2026

Had the opportunity to speak at my alma mater, Southwestern Law School, this week to a group of future lawyers.

We covered all the essentials, from bad handwriting to killer whales.

The one topic that truly resonated was spirituality as a superpower in being human.
I am so looking forward to the next generation.

If you were there, anything landed with you and I can help in any way, please reach out here or by email: [email protected]

To every lawyer who stopped (or wanted to stop) me at CAALA to ask about a case: keep asking.Ask me, ask somebody else, ...
09/15/2026

To every lawyer who stopped (or wanted to stop) me at CAALA to ask about a case: keep asking.

Ask me, ask somebody else, ask everyone. Nobody ever got in trouble on a hard case for asking too many questions about it.

A twelve-lawyer firm; we only take about 40 cases at a time. That is the only way we can say yes completely to the ones we can make a real generational difference on.

But reach out anyway because I am always here to help.

09/11/2026

The best and most surprising part of CAALA Vegas this past weekend was the students.

No clients, no cases, no reason to be in the rooms except wanting to learn how this is done.

They ask the questions many stopped asking years ago.

If you were one of them this weekend and you want to keep the conversation going, reach out. I will take the call.

Some recent settlements in outrageously tough cases met with outrageously creative lawyering. We operate at the intersec...
09/03/2026

Some recent settlements in outrageously tough cases met with outrageously creative lawyering.

We operate at the intersection of Science, Art, and Woo.

A boutique firm built for hand-in-glove representation.

That is why lawyers send us their biggest and toughest cases - and why their clients get outlier results.

Come to us first

Arash Homampour is speaking at CAALA Vegas 2026.He will share insights on one of the aspects of trial that separates a s...
08/31/2026

Arash Homampour is speaking at CAALA Vegas 2026.

He will share insights on one of the aspects of trial that separates a serious case from a fully proven one: damages.

His session, Laying the Foundation for Damages Evidence, Including Timelines and Demonstratives, focuses on how to build the record, use timelines with purpose, and present demonstratives that help juries understand the full human and financial impact of a case.

For trial lawyers handling high-stakes cases, this is one to make time for.

📅: Saturday, September 5
🕛: 11:00 - 12:30 PM
📍: Royal 3 & 4
CAALA Vegas 2026

A public entity may call a location safe because no similar accident happened there before. That fact may be relevant. I...
08/14/2026

A public entity may call a location safe because no similar accident happened there before. That fact may be relevant. It does not end the analysis.

In a dangerous-condition-of-public-property case, prior accidents can help establish notice, the existence of a dangerous condition, and foreseeability. But getting that evidence before the jury depends on why it is being offered.

When prior accidents are used to prove a dangerous condition, courts require a stricter showing that they involved the same hazard mechanism. When they are offered to prove notice, the standard is more relaxed. The question becomes whether the earlier information should have drawn the entity’s attention to the danger.

Timing matters too. A later accident may help prove the condition was dangerous, but it cannot establish what the entity knew before the plaintiff was injured.

The defense’s “no prior accidents” argument deserves the same scrutiny. An absence of similar accidents is one factor, not a complete answer. Aggregated collision data that does not match the hazard at issue should not be treated as proof of safety. And when an entity knew about a physical deficiency or failed to maintain a reasonable inspection system, the lack of an earlier injury does not necessarily defeat notice.

In his new Advocate Magazine article, HLF attorney Scott E. Boyer explains the substantial-similarity rule, its limits, and the record lawyers should build through SWITRS data, public-records requests, claims histories, expert testimony, and motions in limine.

Read “Getting ‘Prior Accidents’ Admitted in Cases Against Public Entities” at the link in bio.

Independent contractor does not mean exempt from every safety law.Delivery platforms may point to Proposition 22 when a ...
08/07/2026

Independent contractor does not mean exempt from every safety law.

Delivery platforms may point to Proposition 22 when a courier causes a crash. But Proposition 22 addresses employment status. It does not erase a platform’s separate duties under California’s motor-carrier laws.

Vehicle Code section 34620(b) prohibits a person or company from engaging a motor carrier of property that does not hold a valid permit.

That rule reaches beyond large commercial trucks. Under California law and current CHP guidance, an ordinary personal vehicle used to deliver someone else’s property for compensation may qualify as a commercial motor vehicle. The CHP manual specifically identifies drivers working in third-party food delivery operations as for-hire motor carriers.

The legal question is direct. Did the platform or retailer dispatch a paid courier who lacked the permit California law required?

The statutory language raises a theory worth pleading and investigating.
Permit records, dispatch data, delivery agreements, payment records, insurance filings, and the identity of the company that engaged the driver may determine whether that duty was violated.

A missing permit is not merely paperwork. The permit system is tied to financial responsibility and safety oversight.

My latest Daily Journal article, “No Permit, No Defense,” explains why.

Link in bio.

The jury needed only two days to decide.The fight to get them there took nearly a decade.O’Malley v. Diamond Resorts was...
07/24/2026

The jury needed only two days to decide.

The fight to get them there took nearly a decade.

O’Malley v. Diamond Resorts was never an easy case. A woman suffered a ruptured brain aneurysm, alone in a hotel room. When her husband called and begged for a welfare check, the hotel broke its own two-person safety policy and sent a single untrained worker, who wrongly reported the room empty while she lay collapsed inside.

By the time the case reached trial, Diamond and its staffing company had spent years fighting every inch.

They disputed causation. They argued the victim’s own husband was to blame for calling for help. They gave the jury every reason to walk away.

Arash didn’t let them.

After a two-day deliberation, an Orange County jury returned a unanimous verdict on every question, more than $60 million.
For many firms, that would have been the headline. For Arash, it was the beginning of the next fight.

Diamond appealed. The battle continued long after the cameras left. And in November 2023, the Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed - rejecting every argument the defense raised, including the theory that Michael O’Malley was somehow at fault for asking for help.

The verdict didn’t just hold. Driven by a strategic pre-trial offer and years of accruing interest, it became a final paid judgment exceeding $100 million.

That’s what makes this case different. The work is never about headlines alone. Even after the press stopped covering it, we stood by our clients and continued the fight for maximum accountability, maximum results, and maximum justice.

Because full justice isn’t achieved when the verdict is announced.

It’s achieved when the fight is finished.

See how Arash turned a hard-fought $60M verdict into a $100M+ final paid judgment at the link in bio.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Address

15303 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, CA
91403

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+13236588077

Website

,

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Homampour Law Firm posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to The Homampour Law Firm:

Shortcuts

Share

Category